How to quantify a distance‐dependent landscape effect on a biological response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To quantify the effect of the surrounding landscape context on a biological response at a site, most studies measure landscape variables within discs centred on this biological response (threshold‐based method, TBM). This implicitly assumes that the effect of a unit area of the landscape is consistent up to a threshold distance beyond which it drops to zero. However, it seems more likely that the landscape effect declines with increasing distance from the biological response point. Here, we develop a method to quantify landscape context effects by weighting the landscape variables by functions that decrease with distance. We illustrate the method using abundance data on birds and insects, and compare the results to the threshold approach. We defined distance weighting functions by the function family (e.g. negative exponential, Gaussian…) and by the parameters for this function. We developed a method to simultaneously estimate the parameters characterizing the effect of the landscape variables and the parameters of the best weighting functions. For each test dataset, we determined which weighting function (family and parameters) had the most support, by optimizing the model AIC. The distance‐weighted method (DWM) improved model support over the TBM in three of four datasets, with the exponential power function selected as the best weighing function in all three cases. The observed differences between estimations of landscape context effects by the distance‐weighted and the threshold methods have significant implications for landscape management. For example, the DWM suggests that managing a landscape for 90% of its effect on a focal population requires an area over five times larger than the area estimated by the threshold method, a situation that might apply for priority conservation of few remnant populations of a severely endangered species. In contrast, management for 30% of the landscape effect requires only about half the area estimated using the threshold method, a situation that might apply to a management situation with limited resources or low political/societal support. The DWM is applicable to any species‐habitat relationship. More comparisons are needed to determine the situations in which distance‐weighted estimation of landscape context effects is warranted over the simpler threshold method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".